Compulsory purchase order — Land needed for regeneration project — Claimant objecting — Order confirmed in respect of entire site — Whether objectives achievable without acquiring claimant’s land — Whether intelligible and adequate reasons for confirmation — Claim dismissed
The claimant owned land that was situated between Wembley town centre and the new Wembley stadium. The interested party, the London Development Agency (LDA) applied for a compulsory purchase order for an area that included the claimant’s land. The LDA intended a mixed-use development on the site, plus a new pedestrian access to the stadium, in accordance with local authority regeneration plans for the area. The CPO was subject to confirmation by the defendant secretary of state.
The claimant agreed that the CPO in respect of the pedestrian access was in the public interest. However, it objected to the CPO in so far as it affected the remainder of its land. An inquiry was held. The LDA argued, and the inspector agreed, that the pedestrian link had to be in place before the opening the new stadium in September 2005. The claimant argued that its own development plans, for which it had applied for planning permission, would achieve the necessary regeneration of the site. The inspector noted that the area was in urgent need of regeneration, and expressed doubts as to the claimant’s ability to achieve the LDA’s objectives within the requisite time-frame. He took the view that a single-ownership approach was necessary, and concluded that there was a compelling need to acquire the claimant’s entire site. The Secretary of State confirmed the CPO.
The claimant challenged that decision, under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, in so far as it related to that part of its land that was to be used for purposes other than the access way. It contended that the inspector had failed to give intelligible and adequate reasons for his conclusions and submitted that he had failed to provide any reason for finding that only the LDA scheme would achieve the objectives of regeneration. He had found that the pedestrian access was the vital element in the scheme and there was no finding that this would not be achieved on time if the rest of the LDA development scheme did not go ahead.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector had found that the pedestrian link constituted only one aspect of the objectives of the scheme. Another was the need to ensure the regeneration of the land between the town centre and the stadium, including the balance of the claimant’s land. The inspector had been entitled to find that: (i) the land was in urgent need of regeneration; (ii) a single-ownership approach was the key to success; and (iii) there were doubts as to the claimant’s ability to develop its land. The urgenct need for the regeneration of the entire site made a case for compelling need. The inspector’s reasons gave rise to no significant doubts, and the conclusions themselves were intelligible and rational.
Jerry Cahill QC (instructed by Bevan Ashford Solicitors) appeared for the claimant; Paul Brown (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant; Guy Roots QC (instructed by ?) appeared for the London Development Agency, the interested party.
Sally Dobson, barrister
